Prospects for CO2 capture in European industry

Chalmers Publication Library

Prospects for CO2 capture in European industry

This document has been downloaded from Chalmers Publication Library (CPL). It is the author´s

version of a work that was accepted for publication in:

Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal (ISSN: 1477-7835)

Citation for the published paper:Rootzén, J. ; Kjärstad, J. ; Johnsson, F. (2011) "Prospects for CO2 capture in Europeanindustry". Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 22(1), pp.18-32.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831111098453

Downloaded from: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/136095

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and

formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer

to the published source. Please note that access to the published version might require a

subscription.

Chalmers Publication Library (CPL) offers the possibility of retrieving research publications produced at ChalmersUniversity of Technology. It covers all types of publications: articles, dissertations, licentiate theses, masters theses,conference papers, reports etc. Since 2006 it is the official tool for Chalmers official publication statistics. To ensure thatChalmers research results are disseminated as widely as possible, an Open Access Policy has been adopted.The CPL service is administrated and maintained by Chalmers Library.

(article starts on next page)

Prospects for CO2 capture in European industry

J. Rootzén, J. Kjärstad, F. Johnsson

Department of Energy and Environment, Energy Technology, Chalmers University of

Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden

e-mail: [email protected]

Submitted: 28th

December 2009 Revised: 10th

May 2010 Accepted: 19th

June 2010

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this study is to assess the role of CO2 capture and storage (CCS)

technologies in reduction of CO2 emissions from European industries.

Design/methodology/approach – A database covering all industrial installations included in

the EU ETS has been created. Potential capture sources have been identified and the potential

for CO2 capture has been estimated based on branch and plant specific conditions. Emphasis

is placed here on three branches of industry with promising prospects for CCS: mineral oil

refineries, iron and steel, and cement manufacturers.

Findings – A relatively small number (~270) of large installations (>500 000 tCO2/year)

dominates emissions from the three branches investigated in this study. Together these

installations emit 432 MtCO2/year, 8% of EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. If the full

potential of emerging CO2 capture technologies was realized some 270-330 Mt CO2

emissions could be avoided annually. Further, several regions have been singled out as

particularly suitable to facilitate integrated CO2 transport networks. The most promising

prospects for an early deployment of CCS are found in the regions bordering the North Sea.

Research implications/limitations – Replacement/retrofitting of the existing plant stock will

involve large investments and deployment will take time. It is thus important to consider how

the current industry structure influences the potential to reduce CO2 in the short-, medium-

and long term. It is concluded that the age structure of the existing industry plant stock and its

implications for the timing and deployment rate of CO2 capture and other mitigation measures

is important and should therefore be further investigated.

Practical implications – CCS has been recognized as a key option for reducing CO2

emissions within the EU. This assessment shows that considerable emission reductions could

be achieved if targeting large point sources in some of the most emission intensive industries.

Yet, a number of challenges need to be resolved in all parts of the CCS chain. Efforts need to

be intensified from all stakeholders to gain more experience with the technological,

economical and social aspects of CCS.

Originality/Value – This study provide a first estimate of the potential role for CO2 capture

technologies in lowering CO2 emissions from European heavy industry. By considering wider

system aspects as well as plant specific conditions the assessment made in this study gives a

realistic overview of the prospects and practical limitations of CCS in EU industry.

Keywords CCS, Industry, European Union, Refineries, Iron- and Steel, Cement

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Over the last decade the EU has implemented a range of policies aimed at combating climate

change. Even though the trend varies across member states and between sectors the EU has

managed to decrease overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 9.3% between 1990 and

2007 (EEA, 2009a). However, to meet the targets of a 20-30% emission reduction by 2020

and a further reduction of 50-80% by 2050 compared to the 1990 levels, extensive additional

efforts obviously need to me made. In the European Commission’s climate change and energy

package (European Commission, 2008a) which was introduced in January 2008 and adopted

by the European Parliament and Council in April 2009, a number of legislative proposals are

put forward aimed at facilitating further emission reductions beyond the commitment period

under the Kyoto protocol (2008-2012). Two central components of this package are a

strengthening and expansion of the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) and a regulatory

framework for the promotion and development of CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS)

technologies.

The EU ETS was introduced as a means to allow EU member states to achieve compliance

with their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol as cost effectively as possible. In its present

form the system covers CO2 emissions from large stationary sources in the energy and

industrial sectors; combustion installations, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and steel plants,

and industries manufacturing cement, lime, glass, ceramics, and pulp and paper (EU, 2003).

Together, these installations account for more than 40% of the EU’s total GHG emissions.

To realise the goals of further, extensive, emission cuts beyond 2020 the European

Community has agreed to increase efforts to deploy CCS technologies (EU, 2009). To support

this development the EU has set out to provide economic incentives and to develop a legal

framework for CCS (e.g. In December 2009 the European Commission granted a total of €1

billion to six CCS projects in the power sector (European Commission, 2009a)). From 2013,

CO2 capture, transport and storage installations will be incorporated in the EU ETS. To help

stimulate the construction and operation of commercial demonstration projects, 300 million

emission allowances will be set aside for them in the new entrants reserve. Between 2013 and

2016 Member States will also be allowed to use revenues from the EU ETS to support the

construction of highly efficient power plants, including power plants that are capture ready.

In a number of reports (e.g. (IEA, 2004; IPCC, 2005)) CCS has been recognized as one of a

number of key mitigation options for combating global climate change. There are also

numerous examples of studies in the literature exploring the potential for CCS and matching

CO2 sources and sinks on national, regional and global level (e.g. (Farla et al., 1995; IEA

GHG, 2005; Stangeland, 2007; Damen et al., 2009; Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2009)). It has

been shown that through application of CCS technologies CO2 emissions from large

stationary sources can be lowered considerably. To date most attention has been focused on

the application of CCS technologies in fossil fuelled power plants. The aim of the assessment

presented in this paper is to provide a first estimate of the potential for CO2 capture in

European industry and to identify regions that could facilitate deployment of integrated CO2

transportation networks. This study builds on an earlier investigation of the potential for CCS

in the European electricity generation system (Kjärstad and Johnsson, 2009).

2. Methodology

This assessment is based on the current structure of the European industry. A database

covering all industrial installations included in the EU ETS has been created (the main

features of this database are presented below).

The analysis has been limited to three branches, mineral oil refineries, iron and steel, and

cement manufacturers. Possible capture sources have been identified and the overall potential

for CO2 capture has been estimated based on the following assumptions:

� Only large point sources have been assumed to be suitable for CO2 capture. In this

study, 0.5 Mt CO2/year is arbitrarily chosen as representing an emission level which

will give CO2 avoidance costs that would make capture economically viable.

� Branch specific conditions; CO2 capture is not applicable in all manufacturing

processes. Individual plants have been classified depending on process route (e.g.

integrated steel plants and mini mills).

� Plant specific conditions; total emissions from a plant are typically the sum of several

separate emission sources. The different flue gas streams differ with respect to their

suitability for CO2 capture. Capture is assumed to be limited to the major flue gas

streams of the respective processes.

� Capture technology; there are a number of alternative capture technologies that are

applicable to industrial processes. Technological and economical challenges vary

depending on the capture option chosen. To illustrate the varying potential of options

two alternative setups of capture technologies have been used in the assessment.

Finally, the spatial distribution of emission sources has been considered. One way to limit

costs would be to create capture clusters in regions with several emission sources located

relatively close to each other. Such clusters would be a way to facilitate the development of

integrated transportation networks. The geographical distribution of point sources, the

occurrence of potential capture clusters and their location in relation to suitable storage sites

have been assessed via geospatial analysis in ArcMap.

2.1. The Chalmers industry database

To analyse the possibilities and limitations imposed by the present energy infrastructure a

database of facility level data on key processes and plant components related to energy use

and CO2 emissions has been created. The Chalmers energy infrastructure database has been

designed to cover both the supply side and the demand side of the European energy systems

(Kjärstad and Johnsson, 2007). The database is divided into a set of sub-databases: the

Chalmers power plant database (Chalmers PP db), the Chalmers fuel database (Chalmers FU

db), the Chalmers CO2 storage database (Chalmers CS db) and the Chalmers member states

database (Chalmers MS db). The databases are being continuously updated and their scope is

gradually being widened. As part of the study presented in this paper the database has been

updated with facility level data on ~4000 industrial installations included in the EU ETS. This

new sub-database, the Chalmers industry database (Chalmers IN db), includes the following

features:

� Covers EU27+ Norway and Liechtenstein

� Includes industrial installations in seven industry subsectors including; mineral oil

refineries, coke ovens, metal ore roasting or sintering installations, installations for the

production of pig iron or steel including continuous casting, installations for the

production of cement clinker or lime, installations for the manufacture of glass including

glass fibre, installations for the manufacture of ceramic products and industrial plants for

the production of pulp, paper or board

� Exact location of each plant; country, city, address and geographical coordinates

� Emissions and allocated emission allowances; verified CO2 emissions and allocated

emission allowances for the period 2005-2008 and allocated emission allowances for

2005-2012

� Plant level characteristics; Installations are classified depending on type of production

process, e.g. Integrated steel plants (Blast Furnaces) and Minimills (Electrical Arc

Furnaces). For large emission sources (>0.5 Mt CO2/year) the database include

information on, process technologies, production capacity, fuel mix and age of capital

stock.

The primary data source has been the Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL,

2009). Other information sources include the European Pollutant Emission Register (E-PRTR,

2010), the IEA GHG CO2 Emissions database (for more details see (IEA GHG, 2006)) and

the Plantfacts database (described in (Steel Institute VDEh, 2006)).

3. Opportunities for CO2 capture in European industry

Investments in CO2 capture technologies involve high capital costs. For CO2 capture to be

economically and technologically feasible particular CO2 sources need to emit significant

quantities of CO2 (to minimize the CO2 capture cost in €/tCO2). Capture is thus likely to be

applicable only for large stationary emission sources. There are a number of industrial

activities that generate flue gas streams with high concentrations of CO2 (e.g. natural gas

processing installations and ammonia and hydrogen production plants). These high

concentration sources (with CO2 concentration close to 100%) have been pointed out as

possible early prospects for the implementation of CCS (IPCC, 2005). Their share of total

emissions from large stationary sources are, however, low. Fossil fuelled power plants,

particularly coal fired power plants, are generally thought to be most suitable for a large-scale

deployment of CO2 capture. A number of pilot scale demonstration projects have been

initiated and several more are being planned (European Commission, 2009a). In addition to

the power sector some energy intensive manufacturing industries have been pointed out as

suitable for CO2 capture. Manufacturing of primary materials such as chemicals,

petrochemical, iron and steel, cement, paper and aluminium require significant inputs of

electricity, heat and steam. Fossil fuels remain the most important source of energy. Many

industries have managed to lower their energy use and CO2 emissions considerably through

increased energy efficiency and through alterations in production processes and in fuel and

feedstock mixes. Still however, manufacturing industries account for roughly 10% of the total

CO2 emissions in the EU. Many of these industries are now included in the EU ETS. The

power and heat sector dominates the trading system both in terms of number of installation

(>7000) and actual emissions (72% of the overall emissions covered by the EU ETS). Mineral

oil refining, iron and steel manufacturing and cement and lime production together account

for more than 22% of the emissions (EEA, 2009b). A relatively small number (~800) of large

emission sources (> 0.5 Mt CO2/year) are collectively responsible for more than 80% of all

EU ETS emissions (~30% of EU’s total GHG emissions). Figure 1 provides an overview of

the distribution of CO2 emissions between the different sectors in EU27.

Figure 1. Sectoral breakdown of the EU ETS. Large emission sources (>0.5 Mt CO2/year) share of

sectors total emissions, grey, and smaller emissions sources (<0.5 Mt CO2/year), light grey. A

relatively small number of large emitters dominate the overall emissions of the trading system (CITL,

2009).

In theory it would be possible to apply CO2 capture to all of these large point sources. In

practice, however, opportunities for capture vary across the different branches and between

individual plants. Important considerations for the prospects for CCS for a given point source

are:

� The possibility to limit the costs associated with CO2 capture. The cost of CO2

capture depends primarily on the properties of their flue gas streams and the flue

gas flow. CO2 typically represents only a small portion of the flue gas.

� Location in relation to other large CO2 emission sources and to storage sites, i.e. to

facilitate integrated transportation networks to suitable storage sites.

� The prospects of applying CO2 capture without disrupting the core production

processes.

There are several methods to separate and capture CO2 in industrial processes. Capture

technologies are often divided into three main categories:

� Pre-combustion processes, where carbon is separated from the fuel before combustion.

� Post-combustion processes, where CO2 is removed from the flue gas.

� Oxyfuel combustion, where fuel is combusted in oxygen (mixed with recirculated flue

gas) instead of air creating a more or less pure CO2 stream in the off gases.

In principle, most of these technologies are applicable to the industrial processes examined in

this study. Post combustion capture through chemical absorption could be applied to almost

all industrial processes (Ecofys, 2004). Process specific capture technologies could, however,

provide more cost effective options. A summary of the assumptions made on possible capture

options in the three branches assessed here are presented in Table 1. The following sections

describe the challenges associated with CO2 capture in each branch more thoroughly.

Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of the capture options considered in this study

Source type Targeted flue gas

stream

CO2

concentration

in gas streamd

(% by gas

volume)

Capture

technology

Cost per tonne

of CO2

captured

(€/t)

Average recovery

rate

(% of plants total

CO2 emission)

Mineral oil

refineriesa

Furnaces and

boilers

CHP Plant +

Catalytic cracker

3-13

Oxyfuel

combustion

Post combustion

capture

~30

~45

65

80

Integrated steel

plantsb

Blast furnace

20

Top Gas Furnace

Recycling

~20

70

Cement plantsc

Precalciner

14-33

Oxy combustion

Post combustion

capture

~34

~60

50

80

a Estimations based on (IPCC, 2005; Allam et al., 2005; StatoilHydro, 2009).

b Estimations based on (IPCC, 2005).

c Estimations based on (IEA GHG, 2008)

d CO2 concentrations in dominating flue gas stream in conventional production processes.

3.1. Refineries

Mineral oil refining involves several production steps where crude oil is purified, separated

and transformed into a wide array of petroleum products. A modern refinery typically consists

of an integrated network of separate processing units. Most flue gas emissions result from the

generation of heat and electricity. The furnaces and boilers that feed the different sub

processes are fuelled by a mix of petroleum coke, still gas (refinery gas, i.e. by products in the

refining process), petroleum fuels and natural gas. Energy use and CO2 emissions vary

depending on what type of crude oil is being processed and on the mix and quality of the final

products.

The total CO2 emissions from a refinery are therefore the sum of several emission sources of

varying size. The flue gases from these different sources have different properties and have

varying degree of suitability for CO2 capture. As indicated in Table 2 process heaters and

steam boilers are responsible for the major share of the CO2 emitted from a typical refinery.

There are two main options for targeting the CO2 emissions from furnaces and boilers; either

CO2 is separated from the flue gases through chemical absorption (post combustion capture)

or heaters and boilers are converted to oxyfuel operation with CO2 capture (Allam et al.,

2005). In addition, some European refineries have invested in combined heat and power

(CHP) plants covering almost all of the electricity demand and a large share of the internal

heat demand. If targeting the CHP flue gas and the off-gas from the catalytic cracker ~80% of

the direct CO2 emissions from the refining process would be available for capture

(StatoilHydro, 2009). It is technically possible to expand the scope of the capture to include

other sub-processes, increasing the overall CO2 abatement potential, but this would also

increase the cost.

3.2. The iron and steel industry

The iron and steel industry is highly energy intensive and the production of crude steel is

associated with significant CO2 emissions. The sector has a complex industrial structure, but

two production routes dominate global production (IPPC, 2009a):

� Integrated steel plants; the most common production route. Involves a series of

interconnected production units (coke ovens, sinter plants, palletising plant, blast

furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces and continuous casting units) which processes iron

ore and scrap to crude steel. Coke, derived from coal, often functions both as fuel and

reducing agent.

� Mini-mills; where scrap, direct reduced iron and cast iron is processed in electrical arc

furnaces to produce crude steel.

Nearly 60% of the steel produced in EU27 is produced through the integrated route (coke

oven, blast furnace, basic oxygen furnace). The rest is produced in electric arc furnaces and a

very small fraction (~0.3%) in open hearth-furnaces (WSA, 2008).

The opportunities for CO2 capture in the steel production chain vary depending both on the

process and the feedstock. In the integrated steel production route there are three main process

gas flows, coke oven gas (COG), blast furnace gas (BF gas) and basic oxygen furnace gas

(BOF gas) (Farla et al., 1995). These gas flows typically serve as fuel feedstock throughout

the entire chain of production. The largest flow of CO2 in a conventional integrated steel mill

is generated in the blast furnace (see Table 2 below).

Recovery of CO2 from the BF gas has been recognized as a feasible option for capture in the

steel industry (IPCC, 2005). If applying current end-pipe-technologies to existing blast

furnaces ~30% of the overall CO2 emissions from a conventional integrated steel plant could

be recovered. Capture could be applied to other gas flows in the production process but costs

are likely to be higher, since volumes and concentrations are lower. Apart from the two

dominating production routes there are several newer iron making processes compatible with

CO2 capture. Efforts are being made to develop new steel making processes that could

facilitate further CO2 emission reductions. The Ultra-Low CO2 Steelmaking (ULCOS, 2010)

programme have identified a number of process technologies that combined with capture

could reduce CO2 emissions with at least 50% compared to current best routes.

One of the most promising opportunities for CO2 capture in the steel industry would be to

replace or retrofit conventional blast furnaces with Top Gas Recycling Blast Furnaces (TGR-

BF). In a TGR-BF the CO2 is separated from the BF gas and the remaining, CO rich, gas

stream is recirculated into the furnace. If simultaneously replacing preheated air with pure

oxygen the BF gas stream would be free of N2 thus simplifying CO2 capture. It has been

estimated that 70% of the CO2 emitted from an integrated steel plant could be recovered if

TGR-BF with CO2 capture were to be introduced (IPCC, 2005).

3.3. The cement industry

In a cement plant calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and different forms of additives are processed

to form cement. The raw material feedstock typically consists of calcareous deposits, such as

limestone, marl or chalk. The manufacturing involves three main production steps (IEA,

2007):

� Raw material preparation: mining, grinding and homogenising of raw material.

� Clinker burning: the raw material is gradually heated and finally burned at a peak

temperature around 1450oC. At around 900

oC the calcination takes place and CO2 is

released from calcium carbonate. As the temperature rises the clinkerisation begins.

Calcium oxide reacts and agglomerates with silica, alumina and ferrous oxide, forming

cement clinker.

� Cement preparation: grinding and mixing of clinker and additives.

Cement production is very energy intensive. Significant amounts of electricity are used to

power both the raw material preparation and the cement clinker grinding and large quantities

of fuels are needed in the clinker burning process. The clinker production is the most energy

intensive production step, it accounts for more than 70% of the total energy consumed

(Worrel et al., 2001). There are two basic types of cement clinker production processes, wet

or dry, and a number of different kiln types. Energy intensities vary depending on choice of

production route and on kiln technology (IEA, 2007). In Europe around 90% of the

production is based on dry processes and most plants use rotary kilns (IPPC, 2009b).

Almost all of the direct CO2 emissions from the cement production arise from the clinker

burning process. Roughly 60% of the CO2 emissions originate from the calcination, the

remaining CO2 emissions are related to fuel combustion (IPPC, 2009b). In modern cement

plants fuel is inserted in two stages: in the precalciner where the raw material is preheated and

calcined (>90% of the calcinations takes place in the precalciner) and in the rotary kiln where

the clinkerisation occurs (IEA GHG, 2008; IPPC, 2009b).

Two options for CO2 capture in the European cement industry have been considered here;

post combustion capture and oxy-combustion (in precalciner) with capture (IEA GHG, 2008).

Post combustion capture could be applied utilizing the same basic principles that are being

developed for coal fired power plants. It has been estimated that 95% of the CO2 emissions

from a cement plant can be avoided if post combustion capture is introduced. The

regeneration of the CO2 capture solvent would, however, require additional generation of

steam thus increasing the overall CO2 emissions slightly.

Oxy-combustion with CO2 capture could be applied both in the precalciner and in the kiln but

by targeting the precalciner only the impacts on the clinkerisation process could be

minimized. Around 50% of the CO2 from a cement plant could be captured using the oxy-

combustion precalciner setup.

Table 2: Breakdown of CO2 emissions from industrial production processes

Source Fraction of CO2

emissions

Refineriesa

Furnaces and boilers

Regeneration of cat. cracker

catalyst

Power (55% imported)

65%

16%

13%

Other sources

6%

Integrated steel plantsb

Coking plant

Sinter plant

Blast furnace

Other sourcesa)

5%

10%

65%

20%

Cement plantsc

Pyroprocessing (in precacliner

and rotary kiln)

Other sources

>80%

<20% a Based on (IEA GHG, 1999). Other emission sources include flaring, methane steam reforming, effluent

processing and incineration. b Estimations based on (Wang et al., 2009; IPPC, 2009a). Other emission sources include palletising plant,

continuous casting, basic oxygen furnace, rolling and finishing, oxygen plant and power plants. c Estimations based on (IEA GHG, 2008). In a modern cement plant a large share of the CO2

emissions originates from the precalciner (~60%).

4. Results

4.1. Mapping the large point sources

A total of 270 installation have been identified as large emission sources (>0.5 Mt/year),

including 89 refineries, 33 integrated steel plants (with 74 blast furnaces in operation) and 148

cement plants (with more than 260 cement kilns in operation). Together these installations

emit over 430 MtCO2/year, more than 8% of EU’s total GHG emissions. Consequently

changes in each single plant could have significant effects on the overall GHG emissions of

the EU. The occurrence of large emission sources vary considerably between EU member

states. Five countries, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy and France stand out as having

both large overall emissions and many large emitters. The heavy industries share in the total

GHG emissions also vary across member states. Large industry point sources typically

accounts for between 8% and 12% of the total GHG emissions (12 countries fall into this

category). In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia the contribution from

large industry emission sources to the total GHG emissions is smaller with a share of less than

5%. In Slovakia the contribution is much larger with three large industries responsible for

more than a quarter of the total GHG emissions. In Estonia, Latvia and Malta there are no

industries with emissions exceeding 0.5 Mt CO2/year. These differences may affect the

priority given to industry CO2 capture in the different member states.

4.2. Potential for industry CO2 capture

If realizing the full potential of the CO2 capture technologies considered in this study 60-75%

of the emissions from large industry point sources could be avoided (see Table 3.). In

Scenario A, post combustion capture technologies dominate in the refinery and cement

industry and conventional blast furnaces are replaced with Top gas recycling blast furnaces in

integrated steel plants. In Scenario B, refinery furnaces and boilers are converted to oxyfuel

operation, oxy combustion is applied in cement plant precalciners and Top gas recycling blast

furnaces with CO2 capture dominate the steel industry. The mitigation potential is

significantly larger in Scenario A where approximately 330 Mt CO2 would be captured

annually, compared to roughly 270 Mt CO2 per year in Scenario B. The cost associated with

CO2 capture would, however, most likely be higher in Scenario A than in Scenario B. These

estimations should be seen as illustrations of the potential role of CO2 capture in large

industry point sources, i.e. a first estimate.

Table 3. Potential for CO2 capture at large industrial emission sources in EU.

4.3. Distribution of emission sources

As illustrated in Figure 2 the large industry point sources are unevenly distributed over the

European continent. By aggregating industry CO2 emissions on regional level (the

Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, NUTS regions, has been used to represent the

regions of the EU (European Commission, 2009b)), 23 regions with more than one large

industrial point source and where aggregated emissions exceed 5 Mt CO2/year, have been

identified (highlighted in grey (>5 Mt CO2/year) and dark grey (>10Mt CO2/year)). The

aggregated emissions from large industry point sources in these regions amount to

approximately 200 Mt CO2/year. Furthermore, based on the relative distance of the individual

point sources and the emission density of these sources, 22 regions have been singled out as

possible capture clusters (dashed contours).

To limit the costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage, clusters need to be matched with

suitable storage sites. Potential storage sites are unevenly distributed across EU. Most

member states have identified geological structures that could be used for CO2 storage but the

accuracy of the estimated storage potential varies. The potential for geological storage of CO2

in EU has been assessed in the GESTCO and GeoCapacity projects (Vangkilde-Pedersen,

2008; GeoCapacity, 2009). The GESTCO project covered 7 EU member states and Norway.

In the GeoCapacity project which followed the GESTCO project, the geographical coverage

has been expanded to include totally 25 European countries (including 20 EU member states

and 5 neighboring countries). Potential storage sites include saline aquifers, hydrocarbon

fields and unminable coal seams (although coal seams have a limited storage potential and

storage can be technologically challenging). The saline aquifers are considered to have the

largest storage potential but more detailed analysis is needed to determine site specific

capacities. Even though the storage potential is lower, depleted hydrocarbon fields have the

advantage of being relatively well explored, the geology has often been carefully examined

and the fields have proven capable of retaining fluids and gases for very long time periods.

The best matches between industry emission clusters and potential storage sites are found in

regions close to the North Sea; in the eastern part of the United Kingdom, northern France,

Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and in north-western Germany.

Industry category CO2 emission captured (Mt CO2/year)

Scenario A Scenario B

Mineral oil refineries 116 94

Integrated steel plants 106 106

Cement plants 107 67

Total 329 267

Figure 2. Geographical distribution of large point sources (>0.5 Mt CO2/year) in the European industry

sector. Triangles denote refineries, circles integrated steel plants and stars cement plants. Regions

where emissions from large industry point sources exceed 5 Mt CO2 annually are highlighted in grey

(>5 Mt CO2/year) and dark grey (>10 Mt CO2/year). Areas with dashed contours represent regions

with high densities of large point sources (possible capture clusters).The underlying map was

compiled using data from GISCO (European Commission, 2008b) © EuroGeographics for the

administrative boundaries.

5. Discussion

This study gives an overview of the prospects and practical limitations of CCS in EU

industry, considering plant specific conditions as well as wider system aspects. The

assessment of this work shows that by adapting a relatively small number of large emission

sources in the European industry sector for CO2 capture, a significant reduction in total EU

CO2 emissions could be achieved. Yet, a number of challenges need to be addressed before

CCS can be seen as a viable option for reducing CO2 emissions from EU industry. Issues such

as costs, public acceptance, legal aspects of CO2 transport and storage and future policy

development will be crucial both for the scale and rate of the diffusion of CCS.

All of the industries assessed here involve complex production processes. If CO2 capture is

going to be applicable to industry, capture technologies that do not interfere with the core

processes need to be developed. Post-combustion capture could generally be applied without

negative impacts on the production processes, but the associated costs are generally high.

More process specific capture technologies, with lower costs, are being explored (e.g. oxy-

fuel combustion in refinery furnaces and boilers, TGR-BF in integrated steel plants and oxy-

combustion processes for the cement industry). Yet, deployment on a commercial scale seems

to be at least one decade away. Much development work remains both with the economical

and process related aspects of CO2 capture technologies. Even with these pieces in place,

retrofitting of the existing plant stock and investments in new capture ready plants will take

time.

The estimations of the potential for industry CCS presented in this paper are based on a rather

simplistic approach and they are meant only to serve as illustrations of the potential role of

CO2 capture in EU industry. The existing industry infrastructure has been used as a reference

point for the estimates. The capital age of the existing industry plant stock and its implications

for the deployment rate of CO2 capture have not been considered. CO2 emissions from the

industry sector are assumed to remain relatively constant over time. Increases in CO2

emission from industry due to increased production are assumed to be offset by CO2

mitigation measures other than CCS. Further, it should be noted that the assumptions made

here about CO2 capture costs are rather speculative. The industry CO2 capture projects

currently being set up will provide valuable insights on both the technical and economical

aspects of industry capture. Most likely, there will be significant development in both policy

setting (e.g the future development of the EU ETS and other policy instruments related to

climate change mitigation and energy use) and in technology over the coming decades which

would alter the prerequisites for the deployment of CCS technologies. Examples of planned

industry demonstration projects include a post-combustion capture installation connected to a

new refinery CHP plant in Mongstad (Norway) (StatoilHydro, 2009) and the introduction of

two TGR-BF’s, one mid-sized and one full scale, at the integrated steel plants in

Eisenhüttenstadt (Germany) and in Florange (France) (ESTEP, 2009).

6. Conclusion

A first estimate of the potential for CO2 capture in European industry shows that considerable

emission reductions can be achieved if large point sources in the most emission intensive

branches (i.e. mineral oil refineries, integrated steel plants and cement plants) are targeted. If

realizing the full potential of the CO2 capture technologies considered in this study 60-75% of

the emissions from large industry point sources could be avoided.

Further the spatial distribution of large industry point sources, the occurrence of potential

capture clusters and their location in relation to suitable storage sites have been considered.

The analysis indicates that opportunities exist in several regions to lower total costs of the

CCS value chain if efforts to develop integrated CO2 transportation networks were

coordinated across sectors and between member states. The best matches between sources and

sinks are currently found in regions bordering the North Sea.

CCS has been recognized as one of several key abatement options in EU’s efforts to reduce

GHG emissions. However, many uncertainties remain in all parts of the CCS chain. Efforts

need to be intensified from all stakeholders to gain more experience about the technological,

economical and social aspects of CCS. In a forthcoming study we will continue to assess the

potential, and to identify possible practical limitations, for a ramp-up of a European CCS

infrastructure. The aim is to evaluate different transport and storage options for the power and

industry sectors.

References

Allam, R.J., White, V., Ivens, N.W. and Simmonds, M. (2005), “The oxyfuel baseline:

Revamping heaters and boilers to oxyfiring by cryogenic air separation and flue gas recycle”,

in Thomas D. C. and Benson, S. M. (Ed.), Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep

Geologic Formations, Volume 1:Capture and Separation of Carbon Dioxide from

Combustion Sources, Elsevier B.V., pp. 451-475.

CITL (2009), “Data on allocation and compliance”, Community Independent Transaction

Log, European Commission, Brussels, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/

(accessed 12 June 2009).

Damen, K., Faaij, A. and Turkenburg, W. (2009), “Pathways towards large-scale

implementation of CO2 capture and storage: A case study for the Netherlands”, International

Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 217-236.

Ecofys (2004), Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs, ECOFYS in cooperation

with TNO, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

EEA (2009a), Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2007 and

inventory report 2008, European Environment Agency, Technical report No. 04/2009.

EEA (2009b), Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2009, European

Environment Agency, Report No. 9/2009.

E-PRTR (2010), “European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register”, available at:

http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 3 May 2010).

European Commission (2008a), 20-20 by 2020 – Europe’s climate change opportunity,

COM(2008) 30, European Commission, Brussels, 2008.

European Commission (2008b), Geographic Information System of the European

Commission, GISCO, Data source: GISCO (European Commission). Copyright:

EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries (© EuroGeographics for the

administrative boundaries).

European Commission (2009a), List of 15 energy projects for European economic recovery,

European Commission, Brussels, 9 December 2009, MEMO/09/542.

European Commission (2009b), “Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics – NUTS,

Statistical Regions of Europe”, European Commission, Eurostat, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nuts/home_regions_en.html (accessed 7 April 2009).

EU (2003), “Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community

and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC”, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, L 275/32.

EU (2009), “Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

geological storage of carbon dioxide”, Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, L 140/114.

ESTEP (2009), New steel initiatives for a sustainable society. European Steel Technology

Platform (ESTEP). Press release, published 5 March 2009, Brussels.

Farla, C.M., Hendriks, C.A. and Blok, K. (1995), “Carbon dioxide recovery from industrial

processes”, Climatic Change, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 439-461.

GeoCapacity (2009), Assessing the Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide –

Storage Capacity, WP2 Report (D16), EU GeoCapacity Consortium 2006-2009, Geological

Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

IEA (2004), Prospects for CO2 capture and storage, International Energy Agency

Publications, Paris, France.

IEA (2007), Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions. International Energy

Agency, Paris, France.

IEA GHG (1999), The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil refining and

petrochemical industry, International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,

Report Number PH3/8, June 1999.

IEA GHG (2005), Building the cost curves for CO2 storage: European sector, International

Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Report Number 2005/2, February, 2005.

IEA GHG (2006), Updating the IEA GHG Global CO2 Emissions Database: Development

Since 2002, International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Technical

Study, Report Number 2006/7.

IEA GHG (2008), CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, International Energy Agency

Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Technical Study, Report Number 2008/3.

IPCC (2005), IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Prepared by

Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.

Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.)], Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp.

IPPC (2009a), Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the production of

Iron and Steel, Draft 2 (July 2009), Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Joint

Research Centre, European Commission, Seville, Spain.

IPPC (2009b), Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime

and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries, Final draft (May 2009), Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Seville, Spain.

Kjärstad, J. and Johnsson, F. (2009), “Ramp-up of large-scale CCS infrastructure in Europe”,

Energy Procedia, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4201-4208.

Kjärstad, J. and Johnsson, F. (2007), “The European power plant infrastructure – Presentation

of the Chalmers energy infrastructure database with applications”, Energy Policy, Vol. 35 No.

7, pp. 3643-3664.

Stangeland, A. (2007), “A model for the CO2 capture potential”, International Journal of

Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 418-429.

StatoilHydro (2009), “CO2 Masterplan Mongstad” (English summary), available at:

www.statoilhydro.com (accessed 29 April 2009).

Steel Institute VDEh (2006), Description of the Plantfacts database, Steel Institute VDEh,

Technical information department and Library.

ULCOS (2010), “Ultra-Low Carbon dioxide Steelmaking”, more information available at:

www.ulcos.org (accessed 3 May 2010).

Vangkilde-Pedersen, T. (2008), “Results of the GeoCapacity project”, GEO ENeRGY, the

newsletter of the ENeRG network, No. 18, p. 1.

Vangkilde-Pedersen, T., Lyng-Anthonsen, K., Smith, N., Kirk, K., Neele, F., van der Meer,

B., Le Gallo, Y., Bossie-Codreanu, D., Wojcicki, A., Le Nindre, Y-M., Hendiks, C., Dalhoff,

F. and Christensen, N.P. (2009), “Assessing European capacity for geological storage of

carbon dioxide – the EU GeoCapacity project”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2663-

2670.

Wang, C., Ryman, C. and Dahl, J. (2009), “Potential CO2 emission reduction for BF-BOF

steelmaking based on optimised use of ferrous burden materials”, International Journal of

Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 29-38.

Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C. and Meida, L.O. (2001), “Carbon Dioxide

Emissions From the Global Cement Industry”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment

Vol. 26, pp. 303-329.

WSA (2008), World Steel in Figures 2008 – 2nd

edition, World Steel Association (WSA),

Brussels, Belgium.

About the authors

Johan Rootzén is a PhD candidate at the division of Energy Technology at Chalmers

University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. His work is focused on assessing

opportunities and challenges for reducing CO2 emissions from the European industry sectors.

Jan Kjärstad is Research Engineer at the division of Energy Technology at Chalmers

University of Technology. His research focuses on global fuel markets and challenges

associated with transforming the European energy systems to reduce GHG emissions.

Filip Johnsson is Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems at the division of Energy

Technology at Chalmers University of Technology. In addition to his research on energy

systems analysis, he has long experience in technically-oriented research into conversion of

solid fuels with a focus on biomass combustion and CO2 capture technologies.